THE FLUID DYNAMIC FIELD AROUND A SPORT CAR

D. Ciano, M. Falchi, D. Pietrogiacomi, S. Pomponio, G.P. Romano

Dept. Mechanics and Aeronautics
University "La Sapienza"- Roma
Via Eudossiana 18, 00184 Roma - ITALY
Tel: +39/06/44585913, Fax: +39/06/4881759
E-mail: romano@dma.ing.uniroma1.it

Abstract
The fluid-dynamic field around a sport car model into a wind-tunnel is investigated.
The paper aims to study the effect of the rear wing, of the diffuser and of their
interaction on the car performances. To this end, flow visualisations and
measurements of forces, pressure and velocity fields are performed. The main result
is that the presence of the rear wing increases the performances in terms not only of
negative lift, but also of ground effect by means of a fluid-dynamic interaction
between the flow from the wing and that from the diffuser.
Introduction
The investigation of the fluid dynamic field in the wake of a car, due to the large
Reynolds numbers involved, to the full three-dimensional nature and to the
turbulence of the flow field is extremely difficult to be performed [1, 2]. At the present
stage of development, an interaction between computational (CFD) and experimental
fluid dynamics is required. In particular, commercial codes need to be tested by
comparison with experimental results on non-standard geometrical configurations
and dynamical conditions. To this aim, detailed car models have to be tested
simultaneously by experiments and CFD (on the same geometry of the model) [3].
The aim of this paper is to perform a detailed experimental investigation of forces,
pressures and velocities on a model of a sport car in a wind tunnel in order to:
-

obtain a data base to be used also for CFD codes;

compare the results obtained with different experimental techniques;
focus on the effects of the rear wing and of the diffuser on sport cars.

Concerning the last point, the negative lift which is required to improve the car
velocity in a bend is obtained by using wings and specific car shapes (especially at
the bottom of the car) [4, 5]. However, the flows coming from the rear wing (upper
part of the car) and that from the diffuser (lower part of the car) clearly interact thus

giving rise to very complex phenomena [6]. Moreover, the design of these
components must consider the requirement of minimising the pressure (form) and
friction drag i.e. to avoid flow separation without using large areas [5]. To this end,
the modern design of rear wings is focused onto the generation of a negative lift and
of a diffuser region in the car wake which can improve the ground effect and
increase the turbulent kinetic energy in the wake [7]. So far, the rear wing must be
placed quite close to the back of the main car body (still in a non separated flow
region) and to be equipped with flaps.
The Experimental Set-up
The main problems which are encountered in simulating the effective flow field
around a moving car by means of a motionless model in a stream are the following:
-

the presence of the ground;

the wheel rotation;
the dynamical similarity;
the surface roughness;
the suspension of the model.

In the present study, to reduce the complication of the measurement system and to
minimise the interference onto the fluid-dynamic field, the ground is simulated by a
flat plate, the wheel are stationary (this point is at present under investigation), the
Reynolds number similarity is effective, the surface roughness is reduced as much
as possible (by using a numerically controlled device for the design and construction
of the model), and the model is suspended using a cylindrical strut placed under the
flat plate (which minimises the model strut interaction) [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].
In particular, the tested sport car model (1:10) is made by light plastic material
(ABS); side and top views of the model are given in Figure 1. The car dimensions,
which are used to have non dimensional distances are: length L = 42 cm, height h =
8.5 cm and half-width b/2 = 9.6 cm. The model is placed on a flat plate (with a
streamlined elliptic leading edge) with a flap at the trailing edge; the flap was inclined
at an angle (about 10) so that no pressure differences is measured between the top
and bottom of the plate. The car model is fixed on the plate close to the leading edge
(at about 3 cm, where the boundary layer thickness was less than 0.2 mm). The wind
tunnel is a close circuit open test section type with a maximum speed of 50 m/s; the
test section is cylindrical with a diameter of 90 cm and a length of 110 cm. The car
model is placed at the centre of this section where the variations of the mean velocity
and of the turbulent intensity are less than 0.5% and 4%. Most of the measurement
are performed at velocities (Uinf) between 15 m/s and 35 m/s (between about 50
km/h and 120 km/h) which correspond to Reynolds numbers between 5105 and
2106 (using the car length as characteristic size).
Flow visualisations are performed using a Laser sheet (emitting continuously on
infrared with 12 W of maximum power) at a Reynolds number approximately equal to
8105 (Uinf 30 m/s); the flow is seeded with smoke particles (size less than 1 m)
upstream of the wind-tunnel contraction and images are acquired by a high-speed
camera (maximum frame rate 1000 Hz) and processed on a PC [14].

Measurements of the forces acting on the model are performed by a 3

component dynamometric balance after proper calibration, considering also
corrections due to the presence of the suspending strut (which is placed under the
flat plate and by visualisations does not show a strong interference with the model).
The overall relative error on these measurements is about 5%.
The pressure field in the wake of the model is measured by means of the static
Pitot tube, while the pressure on the flat plate is obtained using tabs; the relative
error on the pressure measurements is in the order of 3.5%. The measurements in
the wake are performed at different axial distances (x) from the rear wing position (x
= 0) along vertical and horizontal sections as indicated in Figure 1; the distances are
the following x/L = -0.15 (section S1), x/L = 0.05 (section S2), x/L = 0.25 (section S3)
and x/L = 0.6 (section S4). Only a few of those are reported in this paper.
Lastly, the streamwise mean velocity and turbulence are measured by the Hot
Wire Anemometry (HWA) technique using a single wire placed at 90 in respect to
the mean flow [15]. The overall relative errors on the velocity and turbulence
measurements are 1.5% and 3% respectively. The grid is the same of the pressure.
The previous measurement techniques are used to investigate the behaviour of the
model with and without the rear wing (simply dismounted) and considering or not the
contribution from the diffuser (by making airtight the lower part of the model).

S4

S3
S2
S1

S4

S3

S2

S1

Figure 1. Side and upper views of the car model used in the experiments with position of the sections
where measurements are performed.

Results: visualisations
The results obtained from some flow visualisation images with and without the rear
wing are given in Figure 2. The illuminated region is extended from the rear wheel to
section S3 of Figure 1. Clearly the flow is forced upward when the wing is present,
whereas it remains confined at the back of the model without the wing; in both cases,
the diffuser (extractor) is present and this confirm previous findings indicating that the
interaction between the two flows (wing + diffuser) has a fundamental role. This is
also observed by considering the first image at the top left in Figure 2, where two jets
coming from the hole between the wing and the upper model surface and from the
lower part of the car merge at x/L 0; due to the possible interaction between the
pressure fields of these two jets, this phenomenon gives rise to a more compact
wake in comparison to that observed without the wing. This result is almost
independent on the smoke concentration used for the visualisations and persists
also for x/L 0.6 (images on the right in Figure 2). These considerations are
confirmed by more quantitative measurements which are presented in the next
sections.

Figure 2. Flow visualisations in the near wake of the car model with the rear wing (at the top) and
without the rear wing (at the bottom). Three different smoke concentrations are shown; the images on
5
the right are obtained slightly further from the model. Reynolds number equal to 8 10 .

1.0

CD, CL
0.5

-0.5

-1.0
5

11

Re 10

Figure 3. Drag (squares) and lift (circles) coefficients as a function of the Reynolds number; open
symbols (continuous lines) refer to measurements on the model with the rear wing and filled symbols
(dotted lines) to the case without the wing.

Results: drag and lift

The drag and lift coefficients are computed from the data acquired with the
dynamometric balance; the results for increasing Reynolds numbers are presented in
Figure 3. Within the range of tested Reynolds numbers, the drag coefficient is almost
constant (a slight decrease is observed in the wing-configuration); the no-wing
configuration shows CD values which are always lower than in the wing case (the
errors on these coefficients, as given in the previous section, are in the order of the
symbol size). This is quite reasonable because, although the angle of attack of the
wing is quite small and end plates are present on the wing (see Figure 1), both the
finite wing induced and friction drag components are reduced without the rear wing.
However, the observed small differences between the two configurations (not larger
than 15% whatever the Reynolds number), suggest that the form drag (related to the
pressure field) in the case of the wing-configuration must be lower than in the nowing case. This is in agreement with the results from flow visualisations.
On the other hand, larger differences are observed for the lift coefficient; also this
coefficient is almost constant for increasing Reynolds number (the differences are
within 15% for the wing-configuration) and it is always negative both for the no-wing
and wing configurations. This indicates that without the wing the car shape and the
front wing already generate a non-negligible negative lift; of course, in this case the
distribution of negative lift is not balanced at the back of the car, thus generating an
angular momentum which leads to instabilities. The increment in the negative lift is
particularly significant when the car is equipped with the rear wing.

with the wing

without the wing

Figure 4. Pressure measurements on a plane orthogonal to the mean flow ((y,z) plane corresponding
to section S3 in Figure 1) with the rear wing (on the left) and without it (on the right). The pressure
2
5
differences are non-dimensional by the dynamical pressure qrif = U inf/2. Reynolds number = 9 10 .

Results: pressure and velocity fields

The data obtained from the measurements of the pressure differences (in
comparison to the atmospheric pressure) with and without the rear wing, for the S3
section are presented in Figure 4. In the wing configuration, two vortical structures
(corresponding to under-pressure regions) are observed; the one indicated by A is
related to one tip vortex from the rear wing (only one half of the car width is
considered), whereas the one indicated with B is connected to the side stream
coming up from the diffuser. In the case without the wing, both structures are
strongly modified; the former (A) disappears and the latter (B) is reduced in intensity
and size (the position is almost the same). Of course, this is another indication of the
fact that the rear wing not only increases the negative lift by a direct generation of
vorticity but also improves the performances of the diffuser (i.e. the ground effect) by
fluid-dynamic interactions.
For a further clarification of this interaction, the profile of the pressure difference
along the vertical immediately at the outlet of the diffuser (section S1 in Figure 1) for
the wing and no-wing configuration is presented in Figure5 (the three data sets
correspond to different configurations at the car model bottom). Apart from the
obvious differences close to the wing position (z/h 1), it is clearly observed that also
for z/h < 0.5 the wing influences the flow from the diffuser. In particular, the pressure
difference is observed to be more homogeneous when the wing is present
(independently on the car bottom configuration), i.e. there is a larger mixing and
interaction between the flow coming from the top and from the bottom of the model.
This is not the case for the no-wing configuration which shows a maximum at z/h
0.4 which separates the flow from the bottom and from the top.
Lastly, measurements of the streamwise velocity and turbulence in the section S2
are given in Figure 6. The profile of the velocity without the wing displays the velocity
defect due to the wing itself which is not observed in the no-wing configuration. On

the other hand, the profile of turbulence clearly shows an increment in this
component of the turbulent kinetic energy when the wing is present; this increment is
observed not only close to the wing but also in the upper and lower part of the profile.

with the wing

without the wing

Figure 5. Pressure measurements along the vertical in a plane orthogonal to the mean flow ((y,z) plane
corresponding to section S1 in Figure 1) with the rear wing (on the left) and without it (on the right).
Different symbols are used for different car bottom configurations. The pressure differences are non2
5
dimensional by the dynamical pressure qrif = U inf/2. Reynolds number equal to 9 10 .

with the wing

without the wing

Figure 6. Velocity (squares) and turbulence intensity (triangles) measurements along the vertical in a
plane orthogonal to the mean flow ((y,z) plane corresponding to section S2 in Figure 1) with the rear
wing (on the left) and without it (on the right). The velocity is non-dimensional by the free-stream
5
velocity Uinf. Reynolds number equal to 8 10 .

References
[1]
Hucho W.H. (1987), Aerodynamics of road vehicles. Butterworth & Co.
Publishing.
[2]
Hucho W.H., Sovran G. (1993), Aerodynamics of road vehicles. Annual
Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 25, pp. 485-537.
[3]
Ahmed S.R. (1981), Wake structure of typical automobile shape. Journal of
Fluid Engineering, Vol. 103, pp. 162-169.
[4]

Aird F. (1997), Aerodynamics for racing and performance cars. HP Books.

[5]
Katz J. (1995), Race car Aerodynamics: designing for speed. R. Bentley
Publishers.
[6]

Mc Beath S. (1998), Competition car downforce. Haynes Publishing.

[7]
Wiedemann J., Ewald B. (1989), Turbulence manipulation to increase
effective Reynolds numbers in vehicle aerodynamics. AIAA Journal, Vol. 27, pp.
763-769.
[8]
Beauvais F.N., Tignor S.C., Turner T.R. (1968), Problems of ground
simulation in automotive aerodynamics. SAE Paper N 68.0121.
[9]
Ahmadi M., Garry K.P. (1996), Preliminary investigation of the influence of
ground plane boundary layer on the Aerodynamics characteristics of road vehicles
models over a fixed ground. SAE Paper N 960675.
[10] Bonis F., Quagliotti F.B. (1986), A study of the validity of the fixed-ground
testing for Formula 1" SAE Paper N860092.
[11] Carr W.R., Stapleford G. (1986), Blockage effects in automotive wind tunnel
testing. SAE Paper N 860093.
[12] Cogotti A. (1998), A parametric study on the ground effect of a simplified car
model. SAE Paper N980031.
[13] Mercker E., Wiedemann J. (1990), Comparation of different ground simulation
techniques for use in automotive wind tunnel. SAE Paper N 900321.
[14]

Merzkirch W. (1987), Flow visualization. Academic Press.

[15]

Bruun H.H. (1995), Hot wire anemometry. Oxford Science Publications.